If there was a flood in the last say 10,000 years that wiped out every civilization except one, when exactly did it happen? But before you answer, if I find one or more civilizations that lived through that period and did not go extinct at that time, are you willing to reject the literal flood? Because it seems to me that there is no such period when all the civilizations of the world just died out at once. Am I wrong or does this simple fact refute the literal flood theology?

If there was a flood in the last say 10,000 years that wiped out every civilization except one, when exactly did it happen? But before you answer, if I find one or more civilizations that lived through that period and did not go extinct at that time, are you willing to reject the literal flood? Because it seems to me that there is no such period when all the civilizations of the world just died out at once. Am I wrong or does this simple fact refute the literal flood theology?

Nope. Because God Almighty does not lie. What His word says about human history is accurate but we have only the ages of the patriarchs and those who followed to go by. And dates before 1,500 B.C. are very tenuous. We don't even know for certain the date of the Exodus...1490 B.C.? 1446 B.C.? 1,400 B.C. Who knows for certain?

If your position is that the bible is literally true and any possible evidence contradicting that view is to be automatically disregarded, isn't it dishonest and disingenous to even be on a debate and discussion forum? You're refusing to consider the possibility that your views are wrong before any evidence is presented, and refusing to even try to answer my question (but have no problem evangelizing your own views on my topic).

I thought the forum rules forbid "time wasters", what could possibly waste more time than your attitude?

If your position is that the bible is literally true and any possible evidence contradicting that view is to be automatically disregarded, isn't it dishonest and disingenous to even be on a debate and discussion forum? You're refusing to consider the possibility that your views are wrong before any evidence is presented, and refusing to even try to answer my question (but have no problem evangelizing your own views on my topic).

I thought the forum rules forbid "time wasters", what could possibly waste more time than your attitude?

Either engage in honest, open discussion or not at all please.

Do you wish to be eliminated from this board? Then don't make false charges like... 'waste more time than your attitude?" You're on a Christian board in which almost all of the like-minded creationists here agree with me on this issue and they can take your arguments down with little trouble.

You, whoever you are, are assuming that your position is TRUE just because that's the way you were taught. I was likewise taught the same things for I was once an evolutionist. But I decided to take a second look at history and science and found out that I was lied to about most of it. You need to do the same thing and stop assuming that your prejudices are true and accurate. They are not.

The Bible, inspired by God Almighty, is historically accurate and if you disagree then present your case that it isn't and I will do my best to answer you. I've done this many times.

I've been here one whole day and already I'm being threatened with being deleted from the forum for disagreeing. Thanks, that's the response I'm used to from fundamentalists.

"Then don't make false charges like... 'waste more time than your attitude?"

That was a question, not a "charge". I listen to what you have to say and honestly think about it and, idiot that I am, expect the same courtesy and level of respect in return. You want to talk but you don't want to listen. If I did the same I'd be blocked from the board by now.

You're no better than someone copying and pasting spam articles and not reading the responses refuting them. It's the same thing.

"You're on a Christian board in which almost all of the like-minded creationists here agree with me on this issue and they can take your arguments down with little trouble."

Really? I don't see anybody answering my question. And you flat out refuse to.

"You, whoever you are, are assuming that your position is TRUE just because that's the way you were taught."

Actually I grew up christian, attended a christian school up to the 8th grade and didn't know what evolution was until I was an adult (after I became an atheist).

"I was likewise taught the same things for I was once an evolutionist. But I decided to take a second look at history and science and found out that I was lied to about most of it."

If you're so open minded and aren't just believing out of bias, then why do you dismiss evidence that contradicts your worldview before it's even put forward? Isn't that the exact definition of closed-mindedness? You can't honestly say "la la la la I can't hear you" and then lecture the person you're talking to about how brainwashed and foolish they are.

"You need to do the same thing and stop assuming that your prejudices are true and accurate. They are not."

Prejudice? You mean pre-judging something? Like deciding something is false before it's put forward? In other words what you did that I'm taking issue with? Look in the mirror man. I haven't pre-judged a single thing put forward by anything on this forum, I've approached every discussion with an open mind and reasonable, qualified, totally un-dogmatic, open attitude even saying multiple times there could be a creator etc. Don't talk to me about prejudice and assumptions.

"The Bible, inspired by God Almighty, is historically accurate and if you disagree then present your case that it isn't and I will do my best to answer you. I've done this many times."

The question is open, you refuse to answer it (and pre-rejected any possible answer).

I've been here one whole day and already I'm being threatened with being deleted from the forum for disagreeing. Thanks, that's the response I'm used to from fundamentalists.

You're lucky I'm not one of the moderators for I have little sympathy for atheists who make foolish charges like that.

"Then don't make false charges like... 'waste more time than your attitude?"

That was a question, not a "charge".

But you suggested the idea. Don't bring it up again. Stick with the subject matter.

You're no better than someone copying and pasting spam articles and not reading the responses refuting them. It's the same thing.

Really? Another detail you missed; I read the source you gave and even quoted it.

I said, "You're on a Christian board in which almost all of the like-minded creationists here agree with me on this issue and they can take your arguments down with little trouble."

Really? I don't see anybody answering my question. And you flat out refuse to.

Now you're resorting to lies. I answered you DIRECTLY.

Here was your question: "But before you answer, if I find one or more civilizations that lived through that period and did not go extinct at that time, are you willing to reject the literal flood? Because it seems to me that there is no such period when all the civilizations of the world just died out at once. Am I wrong or does this simple fact refute the literal flood theology?"

And I answered you forthrightlty: "And dates before 1,500 B.C. are very tenuous. We don't even know for certain the date of the Exodus...1490 B.C.? 1446 B.C.? 1,400 B.C. Who knows for certain?

I said"We think the flood occurred about 2,400 B.C." My documentation is scripture and archeological evidence for Babel (Babylon). Here is more:

You will have to read this genelogical study to know and understand the names of the individuals mentioned that can be traced back to the earliest human history dating back to Noah's children. So try and prove Cooper wrong...if you think you can.

"You, whoever you are, are assuming that your position is TRUE just because that's the way you were taught."

Actually I grew up christian, attended a christian school up to the 8th grade and didn't know what evolution was until I was an adult (after I became an atheist).

I will never become an atheist. What a hopeless position of utter despair!

The truth is that you were either (1) very poorly taught, or (2) you deliberately rejected the truth because it did not appeal to your sinful desires and/or ambitions.

"I was likewise taught the same things for I was once an evolutionist. But I decided to take a second look at history and science and found out that I was lied to about most of it."

If you're so open minded and aren't just believing out of bias, then why do you dismiss evidence that contradicts your worldview before it's even put forward? Isn't that the exact definition of closed-mindedness? You can't honestly say "la la la la I can't hear you" and then lecture the person you're talking to about how brainwashed and foolish they are.

Who said anything about me being 'open minded'? I WAS open minded until I found out that evolution is such a ridiculous theory and has no basis in reality.

"You need to do the same thing and stop assuming that your prejudices are true and accurate. They are not."

Prejudice? You mean pre-judging something? Like deciding something is false before it's put forward? In other words what you did that I'm taking issue with? Look in the mirror man. I haven't pre-judged a single thing put forward by anything on this forum, I've approached every discussion with an open mind and reasonable, qualified, totally un-dogmatic, open attitude even saying multiple times there could be a creator etc. Don't talk to me about prejudice and assumptions.

I judged evolution about 40 yrs ago and I have many dozens of excellent reasons, both scientific and historical to reject it. I didn't 'pre-judge' it. I looked at the facts and I realized I had been duped into thinking this was an accidental world and life generated of its own accord by chance and that atheistic evolution is a hopeless theory and at bottom line it has no evidence to support it...not after all things are considered.

"The Bible, inspired by God Almighty, is historically accurate and if you disagree then present your case that it isn't and I will do my best to answer you. I've done this many times."

The question is open, you refuse to answer it (and pre-rejected any possible answer).

Threatening someone with censorship for disagreeing with them - not classy.

"But you suggested the idea. Don't bring it up again. Stick with the subject matter."

And I stand by it. And why should I put forth evidence (ie the subject matter) that you say you will reject no matter what it is? What is the point?

"Really? Another detail you missed; I read the source you gave and even quoted it."

What source? And hitting the quote button doesn't make you any more open-minded.

"Now you're resorting to lies. I answered you DIRECTLY."

That's a fair cop, you did technically answer my question. I suppose I should've said answered my challenge, ie give a period in time when every civilization but one got wiped out. Or at least admit you'd be open to evidence.

I said"We think the flood occurred about 2,400 B.C." My documentation is scripture and archeological evidence for Babel (Babylon). Here is more:"

You will have to read this genelogical study to know and understand the names of the individuals mentioned that can be traced back to the earliest human history dating back to Noah's children. So try and prove Cooper wrong...if you think you can."

We have artifacts and writings from every one of these periods and the same can be said of many other cultures from each of those periods, you reject all of it?

"I will never become an atheist. What a hopeless position of utter despair! The truth is that you were either (1) very poorly taught, or (2) you deliberately rejected the truth because it did not appeal to your sinful desires and/or ambitions."

Contempt, personal insults and bigotry are not valid forms of argument.

"Who said anything about me being 'open minded'? I WAS open minded until I found out that evolution is such a ridiculous theory and has no basis in reality."

And now you're not. This doesn't bother you?

"I judged evolution about 40 yrs ago and I have many dozens of excellent reasons, both scientific and historical to reject it. I didn't 'pre-judge' it. I looked at the facts and I realized I had been duped into thinking this was an accidental world and life generated of its own accord by chance and that atheistic evolution is a hopeless theory and at bottom line it has no evidence to support it...not after all things are considered."

Then why does pretty much every christian with a PhD in every field of earth and life science accept it? Are the most knowledgable peole about evolution in the world ignorant of the facts? Or are they all just sinful and perverse?

Let me show you what your evolutionist comrades say about the same subject:

Quote: "The creation of a reliable chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems. While the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists agree on the outline and many of the details of a common chronology, disagreements either individually or in groups have resulted in a variety of dates offered for rulers and events. This variation begins with only a few years in the Late Period, gradually growing to three decades at the beginning of the New Kingdom, and eventually to as much as a three centuries by the start of the Old Kingdom.The "Conventional Egyptian chronology" is the scholarly consensus, placing the beginning of the Middle Kingdom in the 21st century BC. During the 20th century AD, scholarly consensus regarding the beginning of the Old Kingdomhas shifted to earlier dates and is now placed in the 27th century BC.

Counting regnal years

The first problem the student of Egyptian chronology faces is that the ancient Egyptians used no single system of dating, or consistent system of regnal years. They had no concept of an era similar to Anno Domini, Anno Hajirae, or even the concept of named years like limmu used in Mesopotamia. As a result, the chronologer is forced to compile a list of pharaohs, determine the length of their reigns, and adjust for any interregnums or coregencies. This leads to other problems:

All ancient Egyptian king lists are either comprehensive but have significant gaps in their text (for example, the Turin King List), or are textually complete but fail to provide a complete list of rulers, even for a short period of Egyptian history.

End of quote.(Wikipedia). That last statement is worth it's weight in gold against your position.

So who taught you that fictitious historical outline you posted above? And why did you so easily believe it?

Let me show you what your evolutionist comrades say about the same subject:

Quote: "The creation of a reliable chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems. While the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists agree on the outline and many of the details of a common chronology, disagreements either individually or in groups have resulted in a variety of dates offered for rulers and events. This variation begins with only a few years in the Late Period, gradually growing to three decades at the beginning of the New Kingdom, and eventually to as much as a three centuries by the start of the Old Kingdom.The "Conventional Egyptian chronology" is the scholarly consensus, placing the beginning of the Middle Kingdom in the 21st century BC. During the 20th century AD, scholarly consensus regarding the beginning of the Old Kingdomhas shifted to earlier dates and is now placed in the 27th century BC.

Counting regnal years

The first problem the student of Egyptian chronology faces is that the ancient Egyptians used no single system of dating, or consistent system of regnal years. They had no concept of an era similar to Anno Domini, Anno Hajirae, or even the concept of named years like limmu used in Mesopotamia. As a result, the chronologer is forced to compile a list of pharaohs, determine the length of their reigns, and adjust for any interregnums or coregencies. This leads to other problems:

All ancient Egyptian king lists are either comprehensive but have significant gaps in their text (for example, the Turin King List), or are textually complete but fail to provide a complete list of rulers, even for a short period of Egyptian history.

End of quote.(Wikipedia). That last statement is worth it's weight in gold against your position.

So who taught you that fictitious historical outline you posted above? And why did you so easily believe it?

Let me show you what your evolutionist comrades say about the same subject:

Quote: "The creation of a reliable chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems. While the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists agree on the outline and many of the details of a common chronology, disagreements either individually or in groups have resulted in a variety of dates offered for rulers and events. This variation begins with only a few years in the Late Period, gradually growing to three decades at the beginning of the New Kingdom, and eventually to as much as a three centuries by the start of the Old Kingdom.The "Conventional Egyptian chronology" is the scholarly consensus, placing the beginning of the Middle Kingdom in the 21st century BC. During the 20th century AD, scholarly consensus regarding the beginning of the Old Kingdomhas shifted to earlier dates and is now placed in the 27th century BC.

Counting regnal years

The first problem the student of Egyptian chronology faces is that the ancient Egyptians used no single system of dating, or consistent system of regnal years. They had no concept of an era similar to Anno Domini, Anno Hajirae, or even the concept of named years like limmu used in Mesopotamia. As a result, the chronologer is forced to compile a list of pharaohs, determine the length of their reigns, and adjust for any interregnums or coregencies. This leads to other problems:

All ancient Egyptian king lists are either comprehensive but have significant gaps in their text (for example, the Turin King List), or are textually complete but fail to provide a complete list of rulers, even for a short period of Egyptian history.

End of quote.(Wikipedia). That last statement is worth it's weight in gold against your position.

So who taught you that fictitious historical outline you posted above? And why did you so easily believe it?

People debate about dates of biblical events just as much. And that some dates of some events or rulers are in dispute doesn't mean every date of everything in egyptian history is in dispute. What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know.

People debate about dates of biblical events just as much. And that some dates of some events or rulers are in dispute doesn't mean every date of everything in egyptian history is in dispute. What we don't know doesn't invalidate what we do know.

I am willing to guess he didn't even know that another opinion existed before he saw my source. Notice he just dusted it off as if it means nothing. So how can we communicate with such a person?

But in the above sources we are left with choosing between his evolutionist source and my evolutionist source. I choose mine.

However, the difference is that God's Word is not wrong about the past. The fact that we don't understand everything as far as time frames does not subtract from the inspiration of the Bible. It has always been inspired whether skeptics believe it or not.

I hate to see these absurd arguments...one says the age could be anything? One says it could "only"be. The word erets does not imply the whole world, the whole known world could very well have been the middle east, but not necessarily the whole world. IF we could give an explantion for the distribution of the animal kingdom, the insects, and other problems with a wwflood perpective, then we should be arguing for our position. As a Creationists it is not outside of the preview of scripture to assume a limited however very huge flood in the middle east, but not necessarily the whole world. It seems clear that the then known world and humankind was mostly located in this area. But what of the animals we have living fossils and amber encased fossils that existed before the flood and they still exist today? recent Carbon 14 tests of human, Mammoth, and dino bones has them all contemporaries of each other? This bodes well with creationist views, the dates are under 50,000 years. So what if the time line that many creationists argue is incorrect? It in no way deletes the historicity and accuracy of the bible. The problem is not biblical authority but hermeneutics when we finally get some of these items ironed out, I am confident that science and the bible will be in accord, God has set his foot prints in the sand. These arguments based on insistence by certain authors is absurd. I don't think we have enough information to draw any conclusions that are definite yet. I do think we will in the future. Cheers!

I hate to see these absurd arguments...one says the age could be anything? One says it could "only"be. The word erets does not imply the whole world, the whole known world could very well have been the middle east, but not necessarily the whole world. IF we could give an explantion for the distribution of the animal kingdom, the insects, and other problems with a wwflood perpective, then we should be arguing for our position. As a Creationists it is not outside of the preview of scripture to assume a limited however very huge flood in the middle east, but not necessarily the whole world. It seems clear that the then known world and humankind was mostly located in this area. But what of the animals we have living fossils and amber encased fossils that existed before the flood and they still exist today? recent Carbon 14 tests of human, Mammoth, and dino bones has them all contemporaries of each other? This bodes well with creationist views, the dates are under 50,000 years. So what if the time line that many creationists argue is incorrect? It in no way deletes the historicity and accuracy of the bible. The problem is not biblical authority but hermeneutics when we finally get some of these items ironed out, I am confident that science and the bible will be in accord, God has set his foot prints in the sand. These arguments based on insistence by certain authors is absurd. I don't think we have enough information to draw any conclusions that are definite yet. I do think we will in the future. Cheers!

What in the world are you thinking, friend? " As a Creationists it is not outside of the preview of scripture to assume a limited however very huge flood in the middle east, but not necessarily the whole world." ????

Genesis 6 "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

19 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

How could you possibly read such final, bottom-line remarks about the flood of Noah and fail to grasp what they tell you?

The fact is that God promised to never flood the earth (erets) again. What was the sign of His promise? The rainbow!

So if God's promise concerned only a local flood then He has broken His promise many many times since Noah's age. Does God break His promises? The fossil evidence for the world-wide deluge is there...you just need to look in the right places to find it.

What in the world are you thinking, friend? " As a Creationists it is not outside of the preview of scripture to assume a limited however very huge flood in the middle east, but not necessarily the whole world." ????

Genesis 6 "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

19 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

How could you possibly read such final, bottom-line remarks about the flood of Noah and fail to grasp what they tell you?

The fact is that God promised to never flood the earth (erets) again. What was the sign of His promise? The rainbow!

So if God's promise concerned only a local flood then He has broken His promise many many times since Noah's age. Does God break His promises? The fossil evidence for the world-wide deluge is there...you just need to look in the right places to find it.

Calypsis. Reptoman is logically forced into embracing some sort of local flood because of his insistence on "fixity of species". The sheer number of living terrestrial species (not to mention fossil species) would never fit on the ark. As a result, he has to have some way for original created ecosystems and symbiotic relationships to pass through the flood (by being outside it). That, of course, ignores the huge volume of marine sediment that underlies every current ecosystem on the planet that doesn't occur in mountain regions where the base rock is igneous or metamorphic. At some point, all of those terrestrial fauna would have had to "tread water" while the marine sediments were being deposited.

I am not insulted by your response at all, but my response is not illogical nor is it necessarily incorrect. I mentioned erets. Look up the hebrew word in context, there is nothing that insists on a wwflood. The fact that man was destroyed, does not negate the animal kingdom that existed prior to the flood and still exists today except for those that went extinct.....as I said you are entrenched in certain authors insistence about what they see in the bible as the truth. I am not willing to go there yet, as you have no explanation for diversification of animal species, how phelegic fish lived in less than salt water, were the insects on the ARk or off because they are not nephesh breathers. If they were on the ARk where did just the 11,000,000 species that exist in the Amazon alone... How did they ride on floating mats a theroy pocketed with all kind sof issues, and adpative varation an asumption unproved nor ever observed with no evidence or ocnnection to each species. SO until we can have more information that is solid I will need to gracefully argue for creationism from the bible but I shall not be insistant hat 6,000 year must be correct? What if it was 10,000 years? Do you believe the rainbow existed prior to the flood? IF you believe as I do that it rained before the flood then rainbows did exist. There are a host of issues that need to be discussed in house. So don't assume all creationists have your view. I am a young earth proponent, but I think some of what is being insisted upon without giving any consideration for differing views also based upon scripture is dubious at best. Scripture I repeat is not wrong... but i believe some of the hermeneutics for instance that you insist on I do not accept, and have a very strong argument to the contrary....Clearly this is not a "way" around scripture, I believe the evidence supports a limited flood. Fixity of species (werner) is taught in the bible and is supported scientifically. So don't make that sound like it is outside the purview of scripture and solid science, adaptive variation often adopted by some creationists has no proof whats ever that this ever happened. I can give you a DNA, fossil, scientific Phylogenetic explanation as to why fixity fo species is inline with Scripture when God said to be fruitful and multiply the inference was always standard procreation, nor recreation. He created and then rested and said it was good.....

I am not insulted by your response at all, but my response is not illogical nor is it necessarily incorrect. I mentioned erets. Look up the hebrew word in context, there is nothing that insists on a wwflood. The fact that man was destroyed, does not negate the animal kingdom that existed prior to the flood and still exists today except for those that went extinct.....as I said you are entrenched in certain authors insistence about what they see in the bible as the truth. I am not willing to go there yet, as you have no explanation for diversification of animal species, how phelegic fish lived in less than salt water, were the insects on the ARk or off because they are not nephesh breathers. If they were on the ARk where did just the 11,000,000 species that exist in the Amazon alone... How did they ride on floating mats a theroy pocketed with all kind sof issues, and adpative varation an asumption unproved nor ever observed with no evidence or ocnnection to each species. SO until we can have more information that is solid I will need to gracefully argue for creationism from the bible but I shall not be insistant hat 6,000 year must be correct? What if it was 10,000 years? Do you believe the rainbow existed prior to the flood? IF you believe as I do that it rained before the flood then rainbows did exist. There are a host of issues that need to be discussed in house. So don't assume all creationists have your view. I am a young earth proponent, but I think some of what is being insisted upon without giving any consideration for differing views also based upon scripture is dubious at best. Scripture I repeat is not wrong... but i believe some of the hermeneutics for instance that you insist on I do not accept, and have a very strong argument to the contrary.... Clearly this is not a "way" around scripture, I believe the evidence supports a limited flood. Fixity of species (werner) is taught in the bible and is supported scientifically. So don't make that sound like it is outside the purview of scripture and solid science, adaptive variation often adopted by some creationists has no proof whats ever that this ever happened. I can give you a DNA, fossil, scientific Phylogenetic explanation as to why fixity fo species is inline with Scripture when God said to be fruitful and multiply the inference was always standard procreation, nor recreation. He created and then rested and said it was good.....

You weren't insulted to begin with, friend. You were merely answered for the errors you are espousing here.

You are just deceiving yourself. Your 'erets' argument is dead wrong because the language of scripture concerning the flood is not ambiguous on the matter. Even Jesus said that the flood was world-wide:

Matthew 24;

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

ALL flesh on earth died. What would compel you to think that the entire population of the earth was only in the Middle East? Yet Jesus compared that world-wide event with another world-wide event: His second coming. Would you also suggest that His 2nd coming applies only to the Middle East?

Your question, "Do you believe the rainbow existed prior to the flood?" reveals your confusion. The rainbow was given by God AFTER the flood as a sign and you are deliberately ignoring the significanc of the promise.

Genesis 9

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12 ¶ And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. (ahem! 'the earth'...'the earth'...'the earth'...not just the Middle East). How do we know? Because since that time rainbows have appeared all over the earth (erets!) and not just in the Middle East. There have been thousands of local floods since that promise was made...even many this year. Again I ask you, did God break His promise?

Of course the scriptures are correct, but your view and those of your persuasion are wrong and your position in the matter amounts to unbelief. You need to believe your Bible and quit trying to mix it's teaching with neo-Darwinian error because such a thing amounts to a compromise with evil.

if I find one or more civilizations that lived through that period and did not go extinct at that time, are you willing to reject the literal flood?

You ask a challenging question. Any data or information that acts as evidence threathening a persons 'world view', 'philosophy', or 'belief' is not going to result in an immediate shift in perspective. I've never met an agnostic, athiest, or Christian who responded and said "Wow! You're right. I'm wrong". It goes absolutely against the grain of human wiring and the proof is ovewhelming as we study history and all the people that were in the wrong who went to their graves believing in something not true (e.g. earth centered solar system, heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, etc.)

Regarding our knowledge of anthropology and ancient civilizations, we can date with some accuracy historical events and peoples to about 2,000 BC. Prior to that date, the estimates are simply unsubstantiated guesses. Egyptian history is a good example. Secular historians do struggle with dating earlier pharoahs because the best information in the records can be interpreted more than one way.

More to the point. Jesus believed in the global flood (see NT verses). He would be a liar if that was not true.

I became a Believer when I was 17. I read a book called "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell. He used the 'trilemma' as the framework for his position and argument that Jesus Christ was in fact God's son. He was also the author of "Evidence that Demands a Verict" that was challenging but convincing read. The proverbial 'light bulb came on' and I became a Christian. My life has absolutely changed. My children, grandchildren, and wife are all Believers. We can't fathom life without God. It is absurd and unthinkable to us.

However, I was an athiest once. I can empathize with your self-confidence in having the answers and not believing in God. I know, in retrospect, that I was always lacking something deep inside. But, we are all on the "journey of life".

I attended a seminar about evolution and climate change... I had to do so for one of my topics which was to write a review on 6 seminars on their relative importance to society, I was very critical of this seminar and recieved 90% which was great, since I pointed out an unsubstantiated with an assertion being made, (it was about early and modern human teeth).

Anyway, the seminar discussed buffalo and their different types and similarities in relation to climate change over the ages.. Now interestingly their data showed that all the buffalo we have today stem from one type... In that before there were many different types, some cataclysm occured and then only one type remained and all the other types stemed from this one... I sat there and thought to myself, that fits the flood story..

I'll try find the name of the seminar, however I doubt it will be available on the internet since it was done in house at my uni.

I attended a seminar about evolution and climate change... I had to do so for one of my topics which was to write a review on 6 seminars on their relative importance to society, I was very critical of this seminar and recieved 90% which was great, since I pointed out an unsubstantiated with an assertion being made, (it was about early and modern human teeth).

Anyway, the seminar discussed buffalo and their different types and similarities in relation to climate change over the ages.. Now interestingly their data showed that all the buffalo we have today stem from one type... In that before there were many different types, some cataclysm occured and then only one type remained and all the other types stemed from this one... I sat there and thought to myself, that fits the flood story..

I'll try find the name of the seminar, however I doubt it will be available on the internet since it was done in house at my uni.

Right. And how many countless times have believers gone on guided tours in canyons, parks, or volanic locations only to be told by the tour guide, "And ladies and gentlemen, this area was all under water at one time." Need I say more? (wink).

​I think there is an issue with your hermeneutics and biblical interpretation with resepct to the flood. Here are some of my thoughts very compact but, along with this can you give me an answer as to where the 11,000,000 amazonian insects non-air breathing insects got through the flood? Were they on the ARK, or off? The bible says only air breathing was destroyed? But here are also some thoughts that make me consider a local flood. Your comment about erets is actually not accurate, and because you say so it doesn't change the 1,500 times that it is used on a local application in context, since man was located near the Garden where ever that was, it makes sense that man was not all over the world, the word erets in context implies a local area...and the New Testament does not conflict with that view at all, but you think it does?

Before you read this, I am a Young Earth proponents and 6/24 hour days...I just don't believe you or some other creationists publications that people use are actually correct and true, I believe that we clearly do not have enough information to make any claim the earth is exactly 6,000 years old, lastly some of our finest biblical scholars do not believe in a wwFlood, but I am open to a wwFlood when you can give me account of animal dispersion off the ark and the symbiotic relationships that no creationists wants to deal with. The truth is in the Word, and I beleive the Word and the truth whether science or not will comply with one another in the distant future. We both believe in creationsm my problem with some creationists is there is no open door or room for quantifiable objection to many of the current inferences about creation and a keen insistance that only your hermeneutical position can be correct.....Don't mean to get anyones panties in a twist, but "Lucy we still got a lot more splaining to do", before we can be categorical about the details of creation..... As a side note manny YECs do not believe that the first rainbow was after the flood.....?

Erets (Strong's #776) does not require a world wide flood? The word in the King James is translated earth throughout the flood account. It is also translated 140 times as country, land 1,476 times, most often referring to a limited land area, not the whole earth. The land where Noah lived was full of violence not the whole earth, Erets is used to describe the land, we know that the world populations were centered in the middle east for the most part, the whole world had not been populated.

10 of the highest mountains in the world are 26,000 feet or more tall. Ararat is 16,946. After a 40 days of rain, what mechanism would have accounted for enough water to cover the whole earth? If the rain covered the Whole earth, that would mean the average would be 5 miles deep??

Mt. Everest is 29, 028 ft high. A flood 15 cubits above this would be; 29,050 so it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, this would work out to 726 feet of rain per day, Thirty feet an hour, and six inches of rain per minute. An inch of rain every 10 seconds.... If this actually happened then our air we breath would have been cut off???These figures worldwide would be something around 8,712 inches a day.....

The bible implies that the water receded 15 cubits a day for 74 days.... Figuring a cubit at 18”, it would have dropped 270 inches during that time or 4 inches a day....Given the height of Mt. Everest, it would take 87,150 days —that almost 239 years??? I believe this is compelling that the flood was indeed local.

There are many other issues with this as well, but one very convincing one outside of the flood is the bible itself. In Genesis 4 &5 it mentions two family lines that descended from Adam... The line which Noah was part Adam, Seth, Enosh down to Noah and his three sons, etc--- and the other line is Adam, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael down to Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain.

We have a detailed account of Noah's family in Genesis 10. But what became of the other line??? Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain? If you believe in a world wide flood then you must assume these were destroyed in the flood? Would you not? But this presents a problem because Noah writes of them still living during the time he wrote.?? Genesis 4:20-22, check this out.

The writer says these people dwell (not dwelled) in tents, they “have’ (not had) Cattle, they handle the harp (not handled)--if they all drowned in the flood then the Hebrew would be incorrect. Hastings encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics as well as the interpreters bible says that the wording implies an unbroken history of civilization, and the writer of of this section did not regard the flood as a “universal Deluge”. These descendents of Cain migrated east of Eden and populated areas different from Noah. Also after the flood, the descendents of Shem, Ham, And Jepath migrated and settled in various countries, “by these were the isles(coastlands) of the Gentiles divided in their lands, everyone after their tongue, after their families, in their nations...Genesis 10, 5, 32.??? This is right after the flood. If all were drowned but the eight how do we explain the existence of these nations...this of course makes one ask where did these blood lines come from if all were destroyed.?

Population centers mentioned by the Bible are also a problem? Ham became father of Cush, and Cush became Nimrod, he began to be the mighty one. All of this in less than 3 generations.... It says he went out to Assyria and built Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-12) IF the world was reduced to the eight how do have great population centers mentioned in Genesis 10 in 3 generations? In Genesis 15 one only looks at the travels of Abraham and the population centers that existed. Genesis 15 mentions 26 cities......

If you calculate Shem to Abraham, you’ll discover that I is 222 years and that is 4 centuries. If all was destroyed, how is that these many population centers that Abraham traveled to were already fully robust and in existence??? Where did all the animals to support such centers come from? See Genesis 11 for this information....

Lastly we know that the Ark landed on the Armenian mountains. These mountains were somewhere around 17,000 ft. Noah sent out his dove and she found no lace to rest her feet. The water had not abated. So 7 days later she is sent out and comes back with an olive branch. If the world was deluged above the highest mountains then in 10 days the water and subsided far enough down to where olive trees are known to grow, they could not exist on the mountains, these are trees of low lands. (Noah's Flood--Ralph Woodrow)

I have no agenda, but I have just given you a “reason” why I believe what I do, it is not just “mans knowledge” it is biblical and is there. I fully believe the Word is true and that the flood happened and is historical, but I also believe that rightly dividing the word of God, and some of the “claims” of a world wide flood has many issues to answer. Let the bible speak.... This position does not make anyone any less born again......there are a host of other issues about animal dispersal, animal symbiotic relationships with plants or other insects etc. and trees and jungles and plant dispersal, with in mans written history of 6,000 to 10,000 years..

I think there is an issue with your hermeneutics and biblical interpretation with resepct to the flood. Here are some of my thoughts very compact but, along with this can you give me an answer as to where the 11,000,000 amazonian insects non-air breathing insects got through the flood? Were they on the ARK, or off? The bible says only air breathing was destroyed? But here are also some thoughts that make me consider a local flood. Your comment about erets is actually not accurate, and because you say so it doesn't change the 1,500 times that it is used on a local application in context, since man was located near the Garden where ever that was, it makes sense that man was not all over the world, the word erets in context implies a local area...and the New Testament does not conflict with that view at all, but you think it does?

How could you possibly miss the import and obvious meaning of Genesis 6-8 on this matter? The first century Christians believed in a world-wide flood as they were taught by the Lord Jesus and the apostles. There was no 'local flood' theory. It didn't exist.

Why would you think that there is a problem with the number of insects either on or off the ark? Where does that come from if not from Neo-Darwinian skeptics who launch the same kind of attacks upon scripture in their attempt to deny it's truthfulness? The fact is the Bible does not tell us how many insects were involved...Nor even if all of the now-known number of species that were then yet to be genetically expressed in the physical world of Noah. I have never denied change but the changes that occur are always within God's boundaries for living things: within the family and/or variation within the kind.

Secondly, the insects could also exist on the floating carrion (dead bodies) during the flood and the countless number of floating trees, wood, and other objects that could float upon the flood waters during the year of the deluge.

We don't even know if insect were as proliferate then as they are now so your argument is empty.

Before you read this, I am a Young Earth proponents and 6/24 hour days...I just don't believe you or some other creationists publications that people use are actually correct and true, I believe that we clearly do not have enough information to make any claim the earth is exactly 6,000 years old

Oh, yes we do. You either (1) haven’t read it or (2) refuse to believe the scientific evidence for it.a. population statistics reveal that any extrabibilical time frame other than the Mosaic/chronlicers as found in scripture is way, way off:On can see how the formula works out at:http://www.everlastinglifeministries.com/genesis/worldpop.asp

b. The accelerated decay rates brought out by R.A.T.E. reveal the truth of the matter’;

c. Not even the statistics for recorded written human history favor your position on the matter;

lastly, some of our finest biblical scholars do not believe in a wwFlood[/u],

[/b] No, they are not. Not in God's eyes. Their views are foreign to the beliefs of those who wrote scripture.

but I am open to a wwFlood when you can give me account of animal dispersion off the ark and the symbiotic relationships that no creationists wants to deal with. The truth is in the Word, and I beleive the Word and the truth whether science or not will comply with one another in the distant future. We both believe in creationsm my problem with some creationists is there is no open door or room for quantifiable objection to many of the current inferences about creation and a keen insistance that only your hermeneutical position can be correct.....Don't mean to get anyones panties in a twist, but "Lucy we still got a lot more splaining to do", before we can be categorical about the details of creation..... [/b]As a side note manny YECs do not believe that the first rainbow was after the flood.....?

Erets (Strong's #776) does not require a world wide flood? The word in the King James is translated earth throughout the flood account. It is also translated 140 times as country, land 1,476 times, most often referring to a limited land area, not the whole earth. The land where Noah lived was full of violence not the whole earth, Erets is used to describe the land, we know that the world populations were centered in the middle east for the most part, the whole world had not been populated.

Your position is nonetheless in error because of the unequivocal language of scripture (as already quoted) and because it's destruction was compared to another likewise world-wide destruction: the Second coming of Christ. That fact that you can't grasp this tells me that you have been listening and reading the wrong people and believing them rather than the clear-cut, unambiguous message of scripture concerning the Noahic deluge. The evidence for that destruction is out there...big time:So all those animals just crawled to the same locations at the same time and decided to die there together??? or were they terrified creatures looking for high ground to escape the rising flood waters and subsequently were buried by volcanic ash at the same time? There are such fossil graveyards in at least ten different locations all over the planet. No local flood did that.

10 of the highest mountains in the world are 26,000 feet or more tall. Ararat is 16,946. After a 40 days of rain, what mechanism would have accounted for enough water to cover the whole earth? If the rain covered the Whole earth, that would mean the average would be 5 miles deep?? (Note: why not? The Marianis Trench is seven miles dee).

Mt. Everest is 29, 028 ft high. A flood 15 cubits above this would be; 29,050 so it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, this would work out to 726 feet of rain per day, Thirty feet an hour, and six inches of rain per minute. An inch of rain every 10 seconds.... If this actually happened then our air we breath would have been cut off??? These figures worldwide would be something around 8,712 inches a day.....

Mountains are created by upthrust as caused by tremendous seismic forces. It may well be that those mountains were thrust upward during the Noahic cataclysm.

The Bible implies(???that's your opinion)that the water receded 15 cubits a day for 74 days.... Figuring a cubit at 18”, it would have dropped 270 inches during that time or 4 inches a day....Given the height of Mt. Everest, it would take 87,150 days —that almost 239 years??? I believe this is compelling that the flood was indeed local.

You keep asserting your own opinions into what the text has already made very plain: All the mountains of the 'whole earth' were covered and 'all flesh' died. Couple those two statements together and you can't get a local flood! Why would God cause all those animals to migrate to Noah & the ark if it were merely a local flood? Why would he not merely direct them to higher ground outside of the danger zone. I utterly reject your unscriptural position on this issue. It doesn't make sense.

"There are many other issues with this as well, but one very convincing one outside of the flood is the bible itself. In Genesis 4 &5 it mentions two family lines that descended from Adam... The line which Noah was part Adam, Seth, Enosh down to Noah and his three sons, etc--- and the other line is Adam, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael down to Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain."

The 275 examples of human oral and written tradition from so many corners of the earth belie your position on this issue.

We have a detailed account of Noah's family in Genesis 10. But what became of the other line??? Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain? If you believe in a world wide flood then you must assume these were destroyed in the flood? Would you not? But this presents a problem because Noah writes of them still living during the time he wrote.?? Genesis 4:20-22, check this out.

So why bother even asking questions about chronologies since you don't believe in them and the ages they give us in the first place? By your position we would have to conclude that Moses and the chroniclers wasted ink giving us all those ages.

The writer says these people dwell (not dwelled) in tents, they “have’ (not had) Cattle, they handle the harp (not handled)--if they all drowned in the flood then the Hebrew would be incorrect. Hastings encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics as well as the interpreters bible says that the wording implies an unbroken history of civilization, and the writer of of this section did not regard the flood as a “universal Deluge”.

They are dead wrong. Example: http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/Histapp1.html This is the 2nd time in a week I have come across historical evidence that the 'unbroken chain' of man's history in Egypt has been exposed as being in error. I posted the other source to an atheist who is likeminded with you on this issue if you care to take the time to look for it.

These descendents of Cain migrated east of Eden and populated areas different from Noah. Also after the flood, the descendents of Shem, Ham, And Jepath migrated and settled in various countries, “by these were the isles(coastlands) of the Gentiles divided in their lands, everyone after their tongue, after their families, in their nations...Genesis 10, 5, 32.??? This is right after the flood. If all were drowned but the eight how do we explain the existence of these nations...this of course makes one ask where did these blood lines come from if all were destroyed.?

It's called procreation. Just as Adam and Eve populated the world to begin with so did Noah's family. You have a problem with unbelief. All of the human race came from Noah and his family.

This would not be a problem if you just believed scripture by faith:(I Chronicles genealogy): Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.5 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.6 And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.7 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. etc.

Population centers mentioned by the Bible are also a problem? Ham became father of Cush, and Cush became Nimrod, he began to be the mighty one. All of this in less than 3 generations.... It says he went out to Assyria and built Nineveh (Genesis 10:8-12) IF the world was reduced to the eight how do have great population centers mentioned in Genesis 10 in 3 generations? In Genesis 15 one only looks at the travels of Abraham and the population centers that existed. Genesis 15 mentions 26 cities......

If you calculate Shem to Abraham, you’ll discover that I is 222 years and that is 4 centuries. If all was destroyed, how is that these many population centers that Abraham traveled to were already fully robust and in existence??? Where did all the animals to support such centers come from? See Genesis 11 for this information....

The fact is that if you knew what the popluation of those times were then you MIGHT have an argument. Other than that, you are just surmising your own prejudices.

So, you take the 222 yr literally…but not the rest of the chronological ages? What hypocrisy. You wish to have your cake and eat it too I see. But look at the population chart again and the formula from which it was derived and you might get your answer.

I have no agenda, but I have just given you a “reason” why I believe what I do, it is not just “mans knowledge” it is biblical and is there. I fully believe the Word is true and that the flood happened and is historical, but I also believe that rightly dividing the word of God, and some of the “claims” of a world wide flood has many issues to answer. Let the bible speak.... This position does not make anyone any less born again......there are a host of other issues about animal dispersal, animal symbiotic relationships with plants or other insects etc. and trees and jungles and plant dispersal, with in mans written history of 6,000 to 10,000 years..

Oh, yes you do have an agenda and that agenda is to put forth ideas you did not derive from the plain text of scripture. You got those ideas from skeptics and/or compromising theistic evolutionists who pose the VERY SAME objections to what the Lord has told us in the plain text.